Last week, folks who are particular about what they eat rejoiced that there was finally a place that they could go get a taco without being exposed to genetically modified organisms. Chipotle, the popular Mexican fast food chain, announced that their menu would be free of GMOs.

In an immediate paroxysm of denial, the corporate-funded media immediately went about bashing Chipotle for the company’s decision to provide consumers with a GMO-free option to the Big Agri/Big Food offerings out there.

Here are a few headlines:

Anti-GMO Cleanup Needed on Aisle 4 (Wall Street Journal) Here’s the bio of the author of this article: Ms. Bailey is president and CEO of the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

Chipotle’s junk science on GMOs (LA Times) Here’s the bio of the author on this Op-Ed: David Zilberman is professor of agricultural and resource economics at UC Berkeley. Zilberman served on a Monsanto scientific advisory board in 2012.

Now, wouldn’t you think that it’s simply good business to give the customer’s what they want? Apparently these particular outlets know that for them, good business is giving the advertisers what they want.

All of these manipulative cries of “OMG JUNK SCIENCE” are weak arguments in the face of the recent announcement by the World Health Organization that glyphosate, the primary herbicide used on genetically modified crops, “probably” causes cancer. In fact, many of the studies referenced in these articles are considered themselves to be scientifically fraudulent and deceptive.

Even the LA Times article admits that only 1/3 of Americans believe that GMOs are safe to eat. If that is the case, then shouldn’t Chipotle be lauded for the business decision of giving the customers what they want? Apparently not, as the op-ed laughably follows that statement with this accusation (Emphasis mine):

But in misrepresenting the science surrounding a poorly understood innovation, Chipotle joins the too-populous ranks of companies that endeavor to deceive the public. Chipotle stokes the anti-GMO hysteria that threatens to marginalize a field of science that already has demonstrated important benefits. These include boosting nutrient density of staple crops for the poor, enhancing crop resiliency to climatic extremes and equipping subsistence farmers in the developing world with cash crops.

Um, pot, this is kettle. I thought you should meet.

One has to pay attention when a sound business decision by any MBA school standard results in such a flurry of propagandized damage control. Personally, it all just makes me hungry for a non-GMO Chipotle taco.

Leave a reply:

GMO’s are not the problem here, while I would not just trust any thing that a large corporation says is safe without proper testing, humans have been modifying organisms for thousands of years. The only thing that has changed recently is how fast it can be done and the process used. In the past it took years of selective breeding to get the genes that you wanted into an organism. This also resulted in other unwanted genes being transferred. Now with technology we can select certain genes to get the desired traits with out adding all of the other genes transferred in traditional breeding. This also allows for faster development of hybrids with desirable traits such as better drought tolerance and fuller seed heads. The process to create GMOs has been around for decades. Insulin for diabetes started to be produced from a GMO in the 70’s to produce purer and more compatible insulin than the previously used animal derived insulin.

Natural breeding is not vastly different that lab engineering. In nature if I wanted to get a specific trait from two strains of wheat I would need to cross pollinate them and then test the billions of possible combinations that would result from this cross to be sure that I was able to get the desired traits in the offspring that I desired. This takes years of crossing and testing to determine if my cross has been successful. Now if I use modern methods of engineering I can insert the single gene for the trait I desire into the crop and test it to see if it performs as hoped. This greatly reduces the amount of time and work required to obtain the traits desired.

So rather than going through ten billion possibilities of hybrids we can now greatly limit the choices by using modern methods to select for one or a few genes at a time.

As for Glyphosate, microorganisms in the soil break it down. It will not build up in the soil unless it is sterile soil that does not allow the growth of organisms. The speed of breakdown is affected by soil conditions such as ph and organic composition. While I do not agree with the purported practice of roundup being sprayed on a crop a few days before harvest, I have never seen it happen nor can I say that doesn’t.

I never said that I did not have a problem with pesticide producing crops. That was a shortsighted creation that may cause issues. The problem I have is people lumping all GMO’s together as bad. BT (a single type of pesticide producing corn) and round up ready crops are not the same. Round up ready crops have a gene which allows them to perform photosynthesis in a process that is not disrupted by the application of glyphosate (round ups main ingredient). I agree that crops should have fewer chemical used on them, but I also understand that pesticides are used heavily on non-GMO crops as well. The argument of pesticide use causing harm foods is not directly related to the GMOs in foods argument and the majority of people opposing GMOs lump the two together in their arguments.

If you want to look at humans, they have been genetically modified by virus for centuries by injecting their DNA into our genome.

I would not oppose the labeling of products if the general public even slightly understood the science being used. Since they do not they keep referring to the GMOs as frankenfoods and other false names. Just because two species could never breed and create offspring does not mean that they cannot use the same genes. Viruses work by inserting DNA into the hosts that they infect. Research has shown that as much as 8 percent of our DNA has come from other organisms inserted by viruses.

Now with modern science we can perform this same task as a virus to insert a gene from one organism into another. This does not make it any more or less safe than traditional plant breeding and I agree that it does need testing to show its safety.

If products were labeled as GMO on packaging you would find that the vast majority would fall under that category due to modern methods. Even some packaging can now be labeled as GMO as some plastics (poly[R-(–)-3-hydroxybutyrate] (PHB)) are being made by modified bacteria (Ralstonia eutropha).

A label with no real knowledge of what it means will only serve to scare the public from buying an otherwise safe product.

I have no relations with any AgriChemical Monsanto Cartel as some put it, but I do have a B.S. in Biochemistry so I feel I understand the process fairly well. I grew up on a farm and my parents used pesticides when growing crops and about 15 years ago started organic farming. This is partially what pushed me to pursue a biochemistry degree- to better understand what was happening. As I was going through college I learned a lot about genetic modification and explained it to my parents they began to understand that just because they did not understand the technology did not make it bad.

The people that blatantly deny that GMO crops can be safe and beneficial are the climate change deniers of the food industry.

Leave a reply:

Re: “The people that blatantly deny that GMO crops can be safe and beneficial are the climate change deniers of the food industry.” You sir, are comparing apples to bricks.

It is not much of an argument when your try to compare people who choose to eat organic or GMO free foods to climate change deniers. One group is making a choice about eating or producing food in ways that do less harm to the planet, (and it is irrelevant if you agree with this choice or not, or think it is safe or not) and the other group works to deny fossil fuel use is harming the planet, when it clearly is.

And by the way, I have worked with African farmers who are perfectly able to produce enough food to eat for themselves and their villages without using GMOs, pesticides,herbicides or artificial fertilizers. Another inconvenient truth is that in third world countries this was always true until colonialists destroyed the soil by demanding that cash crops be grown in place of food and fiber crops. Also, what is true is that in third world countries most poor farmers cannot afford any of the GMO seeds, pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers sold by American Agri-businesses. When one goes to work in the field with farmers in Africa one needs to use old-school sound Agricultural knowledge to be able to affect increased food production. Again, poverty is a huge issue — I cannot overstate this enough — so seeds have to be saved from harvest to harvest, not bought from for profit Agribusiness corporations. This is all about feeding the hungry of the world is it not? It was done in the past, it is done today, and it can be done in the future if we stop the insanity of “for profit crops” in third world countries, and if we survive global warming.